Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harmony Central
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Guitar Center. I'm going to IAR/supervote this one (I know, someone trout me) because the arguments just don't make sense and Trevj has made a perfectly legitimate comment. Even were I to delete this article, a mention could still be made in the Guitar Center article. Feel free to go straight to WP:DRV on this one if anyone disagrees. v/r - TP 13:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Harmony Central (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no coverage in multiple searches. Fails WP:WEB SL93 (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and I hate to. I used to love that website in the early days. Haven't been there in ages. It appears that no one that writes articles has either, as I can't find anything that approaches significant or even mild coverage. Feeling nostalgic perhaps, but not enough to overrule my sense of criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletiomn discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Guitar Center. I believe the site has some history and ownership changes. [1][2] -- Trevj (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU tp* 07:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU tp* 06:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: apparently, there is some coverage, but I have difficulties understanding whether it creates sufficient notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep : This is bonkers really. I remember HC from about 1993, and it keeps coming up on Google searches, way above this page. However, I believe the following sources count, as they are all on company websites and contain editorially reviewed content. :
- In fact if you google for "harmony central awards", you'll find a number of corporate websites referring to HC reviews of their products. Just because you have to scroll to page 3 or 4 to find them, doesn't mean it fails WP:RS --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, scrolling to page 3 or 4 doesn't make the site fail WP:RS. Those sites fail WP:RS on their own merits. Having to scroll to page 3 or 4 means the coverage is trivial, however, so even if those sites mentioned did meet WP:RS, not being the main focus of the coverage and only appearing as a footnote would mean the mention does not meet WP:GNG, which is the criteria for having a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your assessment. A corporate website is established and has strict peer reviewed content. You can't just wander in and promote something on the spur of the moment. --Ritchie333 (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, scrolling to page 3 or 4 doesn't make the site fail WP:RS. Those sites fail WP:RS on their own merits. Having to scroll to page 3 or 4 means the coverage is trivial, however, so even if those sites mentioned did meet WP:RS, not being the main focus of the coverage and only appearing as a footnote would mean the mention does not meet WP:GNG, which is the criteria for having a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails general notability guidelines quite dramatically. Links given above do not even meet basic WP:RS standards for the site to be allowed to be mentioned in passing in articles on other topics, let alone meeting the much higher standards required to get an entire Wikipedia article to itself. DreamGuy (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- RS for establishing notability of a standalone article is one thing. But strictly applying it for supplementary content within the context of another article is something else, and I question whether this is in accordance with policy. The policy is WP:V, and WP:SOURCES states
The appropriateness of any source depends on the context.
-- Trevj (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Furthermore, if the subject failed the general notability guidelines "quite dramatically", it would have been speedy deleted. Please explain why, in your view, the quoted sources are not "reliable", as, for reasons stated above, I believe they are. --Ritchie333 (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- RS for establishing notability of a standalone article is one thing. But strictly applying it for supplementary content within the context of another article is something else, and I question whether this is in accordance with policy. The policy is WP:V, and WP:SOURCES states
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.